In the ambassador noms, O has been sending deliberately insulting candidates to the Vatican. The pope refused to make any comment on honoring Obama with a degree at Notre Dame.

You come off sounding like a person who forms an opinion without reading the facts too closely. The Vatican REJECTED at least three ambassador candidates from Obama that I can think of. The Pope has zero control over what goes on at so-called "Catholic" universities. They are controlled by boards of directors. Before he was Pope Joseph Ratzinger was the loudest voice in opposition in the Vatican (and thus probably the world). As Pope, he has not wavered in the conviction of his statements. You come across sounding like someone who is a little unclear about what it is a Pope should and should not do.

Thanks. I’m flattered that you took the time to write a detailed response.

But there is no so-called “palestine”, nor any so-called “palestinians” but for various conglomerations of predominatly islamist arabs who should preferably be killed en masse. Of the survivors wishing to remain they would be required to sign a loyalty oath to the Jewish State. All others would be expelled and dumped in some arab country where I’m sure they would be well cared for (not). Or they can wander in the Sinai for forty years - which was good enough for the Jews - where a future generation might just make something of Gaza (which should be held in perpetuity as a future “arab” state).

But Judea and Samaria are...or should be Jewish. Who named them after all?...

And I’m not even Jewish, but Noachide. Though of the Kahane school I guess.

Sorry, but that’s just your opinion. We here in NY became Americans on July 4th, 1776. Before that, we were NYers. Before that New Amsterdamers (or something to that effect). Before that the people here called themselves Mohegans and then by various local names. The point is, the people here WERE what they called themselves, regardless of what their enemies thought of them. Calling the Palestinians “Philistines” won’t make they go away.

Thank you for being flattered that I responed to you post to me. You picked the most innocuous topic to continue our dialogue. It that an admission that you understand how wrong you were to lump the Pope in with Obama, or did you just not bother to read everything that I had to say?

Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις) is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution or nemesis. In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist's downfall.

Doug, this is a simple concept. I explained it to you. What you are posting to me is not a direct quote from the Pope, but a rabble-rousing reporter's interpretation of what the man said. Unless you had a lot of faith in a particyular reporter, or the media in general, only a fool would base opinions on that kind of journalism. Bear in mind that I'm not calling you a fool and I hope I'm right. As it stands, you obviously have no clue on what the Pope actually said, and what he meant. In other words, your opinion is unimformed and has no value.

Again, google “Cardinal Ratzinger + abortion.” You will find that no Catholic offical has had more to say about abortion in the last 50 years. He will also read the riot act to Obama during their audience, but it will be private and Obama won’t care.

What the Pope won’t do is single out the United States or US politicians. That is not the Pope’s role, and there are countless other countries in the world that are more Catholic but have simiar abortion laws. The goal of Catholicism is to reach the individual, so she won’t have abortions, or he won’t perform them, and the both won’t vote for politicians who support them. Pope Benedict has already focused on these topics repeatedly.

Who cares what riot he reads in the secret and quiet? He's providing photo op. Obama doesn't care about what Pope says, he laughs at that, like he laughs at Brian Williams in bed with him...he's only into the image that a pontiff provides. Pictures. That's what sells.

The Pope is also a head of state (The Vatican) and in that role it is his responsibility to meet with other heads of state. The Vatican has ambassadors in many, many countries, including the United States.

As a head of state and as head of the Church, he must worry about the welfare of the Catholics in many countries, including our own. Refusing to meet with a president would be the equivalent of poking a stick in the eye of someone who is already making every effort to undermine the authority of the Church in the United States.

We don’t live in a world in which actions don’t have far-flung consequences. That is what Pope Benedict knows, and that is why he will meet with Obama.

I have nothing but praise for your efforts to explain the manipulation and deception in this article. For many years I have watched as otherwise intelligent Freepers were manipulated by the press with this type of shoddy journalism.

If I had a dollar for every time an outraged thread followed a New York Times story, I would be a wealthy woman.

The construct is usually to start with a false premise, back it up with quotes from unattributable sources, and sprinkle in a few attributed quotes on a peripheral issue, giving the illusion that the article has factual backing. That is what has been done in this article, and it is a shameful propaganda technique that I had hoped people by now would be able to spot.

The way the MSM frames this meeting by ‘color’ (white vs. black) is just disgusting. I have no doubt that Pope Benedict XVI’s primary objective will be to make very clear to Barack Obama the error of his ways with regard to life in all of its stages (conception to natural death).

The construct is usually to start with a false premise, back it up with quotes from unattributable sources, and sprinkle in a few attributed quotes on a peripheral issue, giving the illusion that the article has factual backing.

I was done here multiple times by a couple of diligent posters who even linked other articles that made the EXCAT same error. The problem here on FR usually is that a lot of Catholics have been filled with misinformation about what the Pope can and can't do. Those false premises lead them to misinterpret what the man says. I think there are honest reporters out there who make the same mistake, and others who seek to intentionally mislead. Plus there are moderators here on FR who encourage delibrate and lying attacks on Catholicism.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.